Sure. I actually don't think so. I think LaGG three data is fairly underwhelming and I say that because look at the randomized trial bristles putting out it's got a hazard ratio of point seven five on PFS, that's great, but really, you got to think about in the context of standard of care nivo if the tracks at 11.5 months in checkmate, oh six seven trials, the standard of care, look at where nivo plus LaGG three tracking I think was around 10 months. So no and even if you sort of talk to Bristol Myers on this topic, like really their positioning this LaGG three combo where nivo ap does not get us really more on the B RAF, mek side, etc. So I think that was underwhelming. In fact, it was another abstract from Merck, where they put it they took a PD one plus LaGG three on their side in microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, I think was a 6% response rate. So I personally thought it was fairly underwhelming. tigit remains the big focus not just because Roche had a ridiculous hazard ratio in a randomized first line lung cancer trial and again, was lung cancer. But also because now there's a second high profile randomized trial and tigit coming up for gilliat arcus. That's in specifically in PDL, one super highs about 50%. And, and data is imminent. There's differences in the FC backbone between arcus versus the rotated, but I won't bore you with that. I'll turn it back to you.